Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by conditioning generation on retrieved external documents, but the effect of retrieved context is often non-trivial. In realistic retrieval settings, the retrieved document set often contains a mixture of documents that vary in relevance and usefulness. While prior work has largely examined these phenomena through output behavior, little is known about how retrieved context shapes the internal representations that mediate information integration in RAG. In this work, we study RAG through the lens of latent representations. We systematically analyze how different types of retrieved documents affect the hidden states of LLMs, and how these internal representation shifts relate to downstream generation behavior. Across four question-answering datasets and three LLMs, we analyze internal representations under controlled single- and multi-document settings. Our results reveal how context relevancy and layer-wise processing influence internal representations, providing explanations of LLMs’ output behaviors and insights for RAG system design.

Current reinforcement learning objectives for large-model reasoning primarily focus on maximizing expected rewards. This paradigm can lead to overfitting to dominant reward signals, while neglecting alternative yet valid reasoning trajectories, thereby limiting diversity and exploration. To address this issue, we introduce Learning Advantage Distributions (LAD), a distribution-matching framework that replaces advantage maximization with learning the advantage-induced distribution. By establishing the equivalence between the optimal policy update and an advantage-based target distribution, we derive a practical LAD objective formulated as minimizing an f-divergence between the policy-induced and advantage-induced distributions. This yields a gradient update that increases likelihood for high-advantage responses while suppressing over-confident probability growth, preventing collapse without requiring auxiliary entropy regularization. LAD incurs no extra training cost compared to GRPO and scales naturally to LLM post-training. In a controlled bandit setting, LAD faithfully recovers the multimodal advantage distribution, validating the theoretical formulation. Experiments on math and code reasoning tasks across several LLM backbones show that LAD reliably improves both accuracy and generative diversity.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) frequently hallucinate, limiting their safe deployment in real-world applications. Existing LLM self-evaluation methods rely on a model’s ability to estimate the correctness of its own outputs, which can improve deployment reliability; however, they depend heavily on language priors and are therefore ill-suited for evaluating vision-conditioned predictions. We propose VAUQ, a vision-aware uncertainty quantification framework for LVLM self-evaluation that explicitly measures how strongly a model’s output depends on visual evidence. VAUQ introduces the Image-Information Score (IS), which captures the reduction in predictive uncertainty attributable to visual input, and an unsupervised core-region masking strategy that amplifies the influence of salient regions. Combining predictive entropy with this core-masked IS yields a training-free scoring function that reliably reflects answer correctness. Comprehensive experiments show that VAUQ consistently outperforms existing self-evaluation methods across multiple datasets.

Geographic reasoning is a fundamental cognitive capability that requires models to infer plausible locations by synthesizing visual evidence with spatial world knowledge. Despite recent advances in large vision-language models (LVLMs), existing evaluation paradigms remain largely outcome-centric, relying on static datasets and predefined labels that are conceptually misaligned with open-world geographic inference. Such outcome-centric evaluations often focus exclusively on label matching, leaving the underlying linguistic reasoning chains as unexamined black boxes. In this work, we introduce GeoArena, a dynamic, human-preference-based evaluation framework for benchmarking open-world geographic reasoning. GeoArena reframes evaluation as a pairwise reasoning alignment task on in-the-wild images, where human judges compare model-generated explanations based on reasoning quality, evidence synthesis, and plausibility. We deploy GeoArena as a public platform and benchmark 17 frontier LVLMs using thousands of human judgments, which complements existing benchmarks and supports the development of geographically grounded, human-aligned AI systems. We further provide detailed analyses of model behavior, including reliability of human preferences and factors influencing judgments of geographic reasoning quality. We open-source GeoArena to foster future research.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) for large language models (LLMs) is a key building block for safety guardrails of daily LLM applications. Yet, even as LLM agents are increasingly deployed in highly complex tasks, most UQ research still centers on single-turn question-answering. We argue that UQ research must shift to realistic settings with interactive agents, and that a new principled framework for agent UQ is needed. This paper presents three pillars to build a solid ground for future agent UQ research: (1. Foundations) We present the first general formulation of agent UQ that subsumes broad classes of existing UQ setups; (2. Challenges) We identify four technical challenges specifically tied to agentic setups—selection of uncertainty estimator, uncertainty of heterogeneous entities, modeling uncertainty dynamics in interactive systems, and lack of fine-grained benchmarks—with numerical analysis on a real-world agent benchmark, 𝜏²-bench; (3. Future Directions) We conclude with noting on the practical implications of agent UQ and remaining open problems as forward-looking discussion for future explorations.

Selecting a single high-quality output from multiple stochastic generations remains a fundamental challenge for large language models (LLMs), particularly in open-ended tasks where no canonical answer exists. While Best-of-N and self-consistency methods show that aggregating multiple generations can improve performance, existing approaches typically rely on external evaluators, reward models, or exact string-match voting, limiting their applicability and efficiency. We propose Mode Extraction (ModeX), an evaluator-free Best-of-N selection framework that generalizes majority voting to open-ended text generation by identifying the modal output representing the dominant semantic consensus among generated texts. ModeX constructs a similarity graph over candidate generations and recursively applies spectral clustering to select a representative centroid, without requiring additional inference or auxiliary models. We further instantiate this selection principle as ModeX Decoding, a drop-in decoding scheme with early pruning for efficiency. Across open-ended tasks—including text summarization, code generation, and mathematical reasoning—our approaches consistently outperform standard single- and multi-path baselines, providing a computationally efficient, drop-in solution for robust open-ended text generation.

Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model (LLM) reasoning by letting multiple agents exchange answers and then aggregate their opinions. Yet recent studies reveal that agents are not neutral: they are prone to identity-driven sycophancy and self-bias, uncritically adopting a peer’s view or stubbornly adhering to their own prior output, undermining the reliability of debate. In this work, we present the first principled framework that joins sycophancy and self-bias to mitigate and quantify identity bias in MAD. First, we formalize the debate dynamics as an identity-weighted Bayesian update process. Second, we propose response anonymization: by removing identity markers from prompts, agents cannot distinguish "self" from "peer", which forces equal weights on agent identity, thereby reducing bias and improving trustworthiness. Third, we define the Identity Bias Coefficient (IBC), a principled bias metric that measures an agent’s tendency to follow its peer versus itself. Empirical studies across multiple models and benchmarks confirm that identity bias is widespread, with sycophancy far more common than self-bias. Our findings highlight the need to ensure that MAD systems reason based on content rather than identity.

In-context learning (ICL) enables models to adapt to new tasks via inference-time demonstrations. Despite its success in large language models, the extension of ICL to multimodal settings remains poorly understood in terms of its internal mechanisms and how it differs from text-only ICL. In this work, we conduct a systematic analysis of ICL in multimodal large language models. Using identical task formulations across modalities, we show that multimodal ICL performs comparably to text-only ICL in zero-shot settings but degrades significantly under few-shot demonstrations. To understand this gap, we decompose multimodal ICL into task mapping construction and task mapping transfer, and analyze how models establish cross-modal task mappings, and transfer them to query samples across layers. Our analysis reveals that current models lack reasoning-level alignment between visual and textual representations, and fail to reliably transfer learned task mappings to queries. Guided by these findings, we further propose a simple inference-stage enhancement method that reinforces task mapping transfer. Our results provide new insights into the mechanisms and limitations of multimodal ICL and suggest directions for more effective multimodal adaptation.